Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facilitating the Participation of EU Citizens in the Brexit Negotiation Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Brexit and Democracy

Part of the book series: European Administrative Governance ((EAGOV))

Abstract

Given the significant future impact of Brexit on the Union, citizens and other stakeholders have not merely relied on the established mechanisms of representative democracy, but have been seeking and actively using any available means for information and direct participation. This chapter aims to examine the available mechanisms for citizens and representative associations to scrutinise and participate in the Brexit negotiations at the European Union (EU) level. Effective citizen scrutiny and participation presuppose transparency and access to information. It is therefore first examined what means have been used to inform the public throughout the process. Subsequently, the different institutional forms of EU citizens’ direct participation in the context of the Brexit negotiations are examined. As an overall aim, this chapter assesses the standards which the Brexit negotiations have set and the shortcomings which remain with respect to openness, transparency and citizens’ involvement at the EU level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Art. 50(2) TEU in conjunction with Art. 218(2) TFEU.

  2. 2.

    Case C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, Sweden and Turco v Council, EU:C:2008:374, para 45.

  3. 3.

    For example, European Transparency Initiative, Green Paper, COM(2006) 194; Follow-up to the Green Paper “European Transparency Initiative” (Communication), COM(2007) 127; Better Regulation Agenda, COM(2015) 215 and Communication on its completion, COM(2017) 651; Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD(2017) 350.

  4. 4.

    For example, Art. 9 of the Commission Detailed Rules for the Application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, annexed to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (C(2000) 3614).

  5. 5.

    See Case C-350/12 P, Council v Sophie in ‘t Veld, EU:C:2014:2039, para 90.

  6. 6.

    See Case C-350/12 P, Council v Sophie in ‘t Veld, EU:C:2014:2039, para 66.

  7. 7.

    The Council’s negotiating directives to the Commission on the TTIP negotiations were issued in June 2013 and published in October 2014.

  8. 8.

    See the list of meetings under http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyinitiative/meetings/meeting.do?host=fa02e4e1-d738-413e-8b4e-ed8381a90e86, visited on 30 August 2018.

  9. 9.

    See Art. 2(3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and its interpretation by the judgment in case C-127/13 P, Strack v Commission, EU:C:2014:2250, para 38.

  10. 10.

    Case C-350/12 P, Council v. Sophie in’t Veld, EU:C:2014:2039, para 73.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., para 103 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., para 101.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., para 96 and 105.

  14. 14.

    See Art. 1(2) Commission Decision (EU) 2014/838 and Commission Decision (EU) 2014/839.

  15. 15.

    See recital 2 Commission Decision (EU) 2014/839.

  16. 16.

    See Art. 20(2) (d) TEU, Art. 227-228 TFEU and Art. 43-44 EU Charter.

  17. 17.

    Commission Work Programme 2018, An agenda for a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe, COM(2017) 650, p. 9.

  18. 18.

    On the outcome of the first phase of negotiations, see the Joint Report of the negotiators of the EU and the UK, available under https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf, last visited on 30 August 2018.

  19. 19.

    Art. 11(4) TEU echoes Art. I-47(4) of the non-ratified Constitutional Treaty.

  20. 20.

    See Case T-561/14, One of Us v Commission, EU:T:2018:210, para 111 and 122.

  21. 21.

    See Case T-646/13, Minority SafePack v Commission, EU:T:2017:59; Case T-754/14, Efler v Commission, EU:T:2017:323.

  22. 22.

    See the Resolution of the European Parliament of 28 October 2015, (2014/2257(INI)), P8_TA(2015)0382.

  23. 23.

    See the own initiative report of the European Ombudsman of 4 March 2015, OI/9/2013/TN.

  24. 24.

    See for instance the opinion of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS), 20.04.2017, www.euractiv.com/section/politics/opinion/revising-the-eci-how-to-make-it-fit-for-purpose/, visited 20 July 2018.

  25. 25.

    COM(2017) 482. On 12 December 2018, it was announced (press release IP/18/6792) that the European Parliament and the Council reached a provisional political agreement on the Commission Proposal. The new Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative is expected to start applying as of 1 January 2020. 

  26. 26.

    All initiatives mentioned can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome

  27. 27.

    See Council Regulation (EU) No 1417/2013 of 17 December 2013 laying down the form of the laissez-passer issued by the European Union.

  28. 28.

    Brussels, 21 December 2016, IP/16/4436.

  29. 29.

    See also the facts mentioned in Case T-44/14, Constantini and others v Commission, EU:T:2016:223, para 54, as regards the Commission’s detailed assessment of possible legal bases.

  30. 30.

    See for example the Commission decision C(2018) 4584, which accepted the registration of the initiative “Stop starvation for 8% of the European population” whereby implicitly acknowledging in the recitals of the registration decision (in particular recital 6) that there is no legal basis in the EU Treaties which could support the aim of the initiative in its exact current form.

  31. 31.

    See in particular the recitals of Commission Decisions C(2017) 2001, C(2017) 2002 and C(2018) 4557.

References

  • Abazi, V., & Hillebrandt, M. (2015). The Legal Limits to Confidential Negotiations Recent Case Law Developments in Council Transparency: Access Info Europe and In’t Veld. Common Market Law Review, 52, 825.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnor, P. (2006). When EU Civil Society Complains: Civil Society Organisations and Ombudsmanship at the European Level. In S. Smismans (Ed.), Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance (p. 141). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusenbauch Meislova, M. (2019). The European Parliament in the Brexit Process: Leading Role, Supporting Role or just a Small Cameo? In T. Christiansen & D. Fromage (Eds.), Brexit and Democracy: The Role of Parliaments in the UK and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunea, A. (2018). Legitimacy Through Targeted Transparency? Regulatory Effectiveness and Sustainability of Lobbying Regulation in the European Union. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buth, V., Högenauer, A., & Kaniok, P. (2019). The Scrutiny of Brexit in National Parliaments: Germany, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic Compared. In T. Christiansen & D. Fromage (Eds.), Brexit and Democracy: The Role of Parliaments in the UK and the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU. (2017a, May 22). Decision Authorising the Opening of Negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for an Agreement Setting Out the Arrangements for Its Withdrawal from the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the EU. (2017b). Guiding Principles for Transparency in Negotiations Under Article 50 TEU, 22 May 2017, XT 21016/17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. (2017). Process: Brexit and the Anatomy of Art. 50. In F. Fabbrini (Ed.), The Law and Politics of Brexit (p. 50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuesta Lopez, V. (2010). The Lisbon Treaty’s Provisions on Democratic Principles: A Legal Framework for Participatory Democracy. European Public Law, 1, 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D. (1991). Transparency and Political Participation in EU Governance: A Role for Civil Society? Cultural Values, 3, 445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D., & Meijer, A. (2006). Does Transparency Strengthen Legitimacy? Information Polity, 11, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M. (2011). What Are We to Make of the Citizens’ Initiative? Common Market Law Review, 48, 1807.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2016). Proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement on a Mandatory Transparency Register, COM(2016) 627.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017a). Approach to Transparency in the Article 50 Negotiations with the United Kingdom. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/european-commissions-approach-transparency-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

  • European Commission. (2017b, March 13). Stakeholder Outreach Concerning Article 50 Negotiations with the United Kingdom. https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/stakeholder-outreach-concerning-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom-2017-mar-13_en

  • European Commission. (2017c). Better Regulation Guidelines, Commission Staff Working Document, SWD (2017) 350.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018a, March 28). Second Report to the European Parliament and Council on the Application of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, C(2018) 157.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2018b, April 13). Reply From Commission President Juncker to the Ombudsman’s Letter Concerning Securing Appropriate Stakeholder Input in the Brexit Negotiations and Potential for Further Progress on Transparency, Case SI/1/2017/KR.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council. (2017, April 29). Guidelines Following the United Kingdom’s Notification Under Article 50 TEU, EUCO XT 20004/17.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2014a, July 29). Letter to the Council of the EU Requesting an Opinion in the Own-Initiative Inquiry Concerning Transparency and Public Participation in Relation to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Negotiations, Case OI/11/2014/RA.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2014b, October 31). Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing Her Own-Initiative Inquiry Concerning the Council of the EU, Case OI/10/2014/RA.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2015, January 6). Decision of the European Ombudsman Closing Her Own-Initiative Inquiry Concerning the European Commission, Case OI/10/2014/RA.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2017a, February 28). Letter from the Ombudsman to Commission President Juncker Concerning Information for the Public on the Upcoming Negotiations Aimed at Reaching Agreement on the UK’s Withdrawal from the EU, CASE SI/1/2017/KR.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2017b, February 28). Letter From the Ombudsman to the Secretary-General of the Council of the EU Concerning Public Information on the UK’s Withdrawal From the EU, Case SI/1/2017/KR.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2018, February 23). Letter From the Ombudsman to President Juncker Concerning Securing Appropriate Stakeholder Input in the Brexit Negotiations and Potential for Further Progress on Transparency, Case SI/1/2017/KR.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and European Commission. (2011). Agreement on the Establishment of a Transparency Register for Organisations and Self-Employed Individuals Engaged in EU Policy-Making and Policy Implementation, OJ L 191, 22.7.2011, as amended in 2014, OJ L 277/11, 19.9.2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabbrini, F. (2017). Brexit and EU Treaty Reform. In F. Fabbrini (Ed.), The Law and Politics of Brexit (p. 287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Karatzia, A. (2017). The European Citizensʼ Initiative and the EU Institutional Balance: On Realism and the Possibilities of Affecting EU Lawmaking. Common Market Law Review, 54, 177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, B. (2012). Transnational Babystep: The European Citizens’ Initiative. In T. Schiller & M. Setala (Eds.), Citizens’ Initiatives in Europe; Procedures and Consequences of Agenda-Setting by Citizens (p. 229). Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirste, S. (2018). A Rights-Based Justification of the Participation of Civil Society in Europe. In H. Brunkhorst, D. Vujadinovic, & T. Marinkovic (Eds.), European Democracy in Crisis (Eleven, p. 135).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger, S. (2013). Creating a European Demos? The Representativeness of European Umbrella Organisations. Journal of European Integration, 35, 583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutay, A. (2015). Limits of Participatory Democracy in European Governance. European Law Journal, 21, 803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnette, P. (2006). Democracy in the European Union: Why and How to Combine Representation and Participation? In S. Smismans (Ed.), Civil Society and Legitimate European Governance (p. 23). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes, J. (2011). Participation and the Role of Law After Lisbon: A Legal View on Article 11 TEU. Common Market Law Review, 48, 1849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendes, J. (2017) Executive Rulemaking: Procedures in Between Constitutional Principles and Institutional Entrenchment. In C. Harlow, P. Leino & G. Della Cananea (Eds.), Research Handbook in EU Administrative Law (p. 371). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez, F., & Mendez, M. (2017). The Promise and Perils of Direct Democracy for the European Union. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 9, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, L. (2018). Types of Referendums, Provisions and Practice at the National Level Worldwide. In L. Morel & M. Qvortrup (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy (p. 27). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, J. (2017). EU Citizen Participation, Openness and the European Citizens’ Initiative: The TTIP Legacy. Common Market Law Review, 54, 1713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, M. (2018). Western Europe. In M. Qvortrup (Ed.), Referendums Around the World (p. 19). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salm, C. (2018). The Added Value of the ECI and Its Revision. European Parliament Research Service, PE 615.666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sipala, F. (2007). La vie démocratique de l’Union. In G. Amato, H. Bribosia, & B. De Witte (Eds.), Genèse et destinée de la Constitution européenne (p. 367). Bruxelles: Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogiatzis, N. (2017). Between Discretion and Control: Reflections on the Institutional Position of the Commission Within the European Citizens’ Initiative Process. European Law Journal, 23, 250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Natassa Athanasiadou

Authors
  1. Natassa Athanasiadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natassa Athanasiadou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Thomas Christiansen

  2. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Diane Fromage

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Athanasiadou, N. (2019). Facilitating the Participation of EU Citizens in the Brexit Negotiation Process. In: Christiansen, T., Fromage, D. (eds) Brexit and Democracy. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06043-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation